Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.

Crazy: Notes On and Off the Couch is a new book by Rob Dobrenski, a PhD psychologist in clinical practice. He emailed me and asked me if I would review it. Note to everyone else: this is a terrible idea.

The book is about his experiences as a therapist, from the difficulties with fees to working with sex offenders.

It's a memoir, but once you publish a book readers interact with it in their own ways, pulling into it things the author hadn't even considered. It stops being non-fiction and becomes a story.

So instead of reading it like a memoir, let's read it like a story, and see if we can't learn something about ourselves.

II.

Dobrenski's book is about his work with clients, but it's about two other things.

The second thing it is about is his own therapy with a therapist. It's a parallel story, as he's helping people work through their issues, he's working through his own.

But this is a narrative, and every narrative has a first thing-- an inciting event. Robert McKee's Story defines the inciting event as "an event that radically upsets the balance of forces in the protagonist's life." It's the event that propels the story, without which there is no story. Rob Dobrenski complies with McKee's directive to "put the inciting event into the story as soon as possible"-- he puts it in the prologue. It is this: he meets Janet, a beautiful redhead in his training program, his soulmate, "the one."

And she dumps him.

Now you have a story.

III.

From McKee's textbook of psychoanalysis:

Story begins when an event, either by human decision or accident in the universe, radically upsets the balance of forces in the protagonist's life, arousing in that character the need to restore the balance of life. To do so, that character will conceive of an "Object of Desire," that which they [believe] they need to put life back into balance. They will then go off into their world, into themselves, in the various dimensions of their existence, seeking that Object of Desire, trying to restore the balance of life, and they will struggle against forces of antagonism that will come from their own inner natures as human beings, their relationships with other human beings, their personal and/or social life, and the physical environment itself. They may or may not achieve that Object of Desire; they may or may not finally be able to restore their life to a satisfying balance. That, in the simplest possible way, defines the elements of story.

Everything that happens in your life is digested by you through this process, so it would be worth your time to memorize it.

IV.

So we have a story about a man who loses his soulmate and becomes miserable, Zoloft and therapy miserable, passive suicidality and eating her photograph miserable, all while becoming a therapist and struggling to help others.

I'll grant you that he's 25 when Janet comes and goes, so some confusion, soul searching and drama is to be expected. The issue for us therefore isn't whether his reactions are normal, but why they are not uncommon. Why do a lot of men go through this, in this way?

How does a therapist do therapy, which is a kind of story? How does a writer do a story about therapy, a story about a story?

Step 1-- actually, there's only ever one step-- focus precisely on the words.

Here's how he describes Janet:

never before (or since) had I ever believed in the notion of Love at first sight... it was as if the film Weird Science had come to life and someone had created this physical specimen just for me. Or maybe the gods had simply decreed that this was the moment I was to meet my soul mate. Something clicked, and I made a conscious decision to form an indelible bond with her.

Remember: this is in the prologue. This is what starts the story. Of course it's a book and of course it's written after the fact, and hell, perhaps it isn't even true but none of those things are relevant because psychology operates outside of time and space. "Well, that part's not true, I made it up." How can you understand what's true, Dusty? Truth has seven levels. Instead, just focus on the words.

Which words? Note the words, "conscious decision." That's not a throwaway phrase. If it was his soulmate, if the gods had decreed it, it wouldn't be a decision any more than you'd say it would be a decision to win the lottery or fall into a hyena pit. But that he chose to fall for her, decided that he knew how special she really was, decided to fall into a hyena pit-- then you no longer have a story about unrequited love, you have a story about old school Freudian masochism. Think about this.

As a small point, he didn't realize it, but at that moment he was exhibiting a form of "ownership bias" quite common among 25 year olds: since he was able to get this hot girl and others didn't, this must be a special relationship indeed. If you consider that the purpose of this ownership bias is the reduction of cognitive dissonance, then what it defends against is buyer's remorse.

But the point for us here is that even before we leave the prologue of this story or finish the first session of therapy, we should already understand that in order for him to get over her, to "restore balance in his life," he's going to have to figure out why he did this to himself.

V.

The other thing of note in that paragraph is the movie choice, Weird Science. Here's a handy life tip: when someone likens their life to a book or movie, pay attention, that's more informative than two MRIs and an Amytal interview. Second tip: when they do reference the movie, the important thing about it is the thing they forgot. So what do we know about Weird Science?

We know it was made in 1985, which means Dobrenski's sexuality began to form around the narratives and images of that time, which is why he referenced this move and not Bride Of Frankenstein or Simone. This is important because when you're trying to understand someone's relationship to sex, you have know the stories the person uses to value it, i.e. the stories they were immersed in during their teens. In the 80s, that meant getting not the hottest girl, but the girl from the higher class.(1) It also divided society along a two party system, preppies vs. nerds, "beautiful people" vs. "untouchables."(2)

His use of Weird Science was intended to mean, "a perfectly constructed woman to my exact physical specifications" but that's not what it means. Three paragraphs later, describing his surprise at her dumping him, he says this:

I was so dumb that I was actually shocked when it happened. But we were meant to be together! Didn't you see Weird Science?!

I saw Weird Science, all the way to the end, the end where the boys decide they don't want their perfect woman and make her leave (in this case nicely.) I'm sure Janet thinks she left and I'm sure Rob thinks she dumped him but I'm all in that he did everything in his power to make her realize he wasn't right for her, to make her do the hard work of leaving him since he couldn't cut that cord himself. When you have your perfect woman for the 90 minutes of a movie and you never have sex with her, I suppose it could mean you're just nervous but it probably means she's not your perfect woman. (I'll grant that the opposite is not at all informative.) And Rob may have had sex with Janet, but he probably doesn't have to think hard to find a million other examples of things he did that, in retrospect, clearly told him Janet wasn't the One. It's hard to depict psychic resistance in a visual story; in dreams it is done by feeling stuck or slowed, but one solid way to do it in a movie is by making the character wear pants in a shower while Kelly LeBrock is naked. So Weird Science isn't about getting the perfect woman, it's about realizing you don't want the perfect woman.

Once she gets dressed, Lisa and Janet's entire purpose is to build up their self-confidence; create some scenarios where they can manifest their identities, and then get out of the way.

The point, however, isn't that Dobrenski's movie choice was wrong, or that he misunderstood its story. The point is that he chose perfectly, but misunderstood why; which is why in therapy and in stories, similes aren't accidents. "Lisa is everything I ever wanted in a girl, before I knew what I wanted." I hear you, Rob.

VI.

But I'm jumping ahead. Let's get back to the story.

Rob is miserable when she dumps him. Janet was perfect, and Janet is gone, into the arms of a different man. And another man. And another one. And guess what? All the men are hot. And so is she. And etc.

Or so he imagines. Carol, his therapist, tries to clear him by asking him to describe these images that plague him, of Janet and her other lovers. So he says,

Janet is in her bedroom... She's gorgeous; she's wearing a negligee that she bought when we were together. She's smiling and being all seductive." [And the guy?] "He's tall, like six-foot-two, a little bigger than me. He's good looking. Very good-looking, built and strong.

Carol correctly interprets this all as a self-defeating negatism; he creates a "flawless rival" in his head that he can never best; which virtually guarantees his ongoing misery. Only when he understands that this image is unrealistic will he get over her. So, she suggests, try to take these fantasies to their conclusion. What happens after they have sex? Does the guy leave? Is she hurt that she was used? Does she go to the bathroom? Etc. Make her a real person, and not a porno.

In this way Rob slowly gains control of these images and fantasies. "When images become boring," says Carol, "they go away. And, fortunately, so do your symptoms."

So it helps Rob, but it leaves an unanswered question: why did he have these images in the first place?

VII.

In "The Ghost of Janet" he describes the sessions that deal with getting over Janet and his "irrational cognitions," e.g.

The typical way of working these problems is to realize that they aren't true, that they are self-defeating; that they originate in childhood, that they are the results of insufficient, or inconsistent, parental love. That's the typical way, and the wrong way.

Tell me about Janet, his therapist asks. What did you like about her?

He describes what he liked about her in detail. We're in a story, so focus on the words:

She was fun to be with.

"I miss being sexual with her." "I felt good with her."

She was good looking, but in italics he writes, All these guys want to be me.

I hope it is immediately obvious, through this simple exercise of saying in words what you think can't be expressed in words, what's wrong with his love for Janet: none of those things have anything to do with Janet. They are all about him. In fact, Janet is pretty much an inanimate object, a MacGuffin. The therapist detected it as well: "Could she be more symbolic than real in some ways?" Cross out the last three words and you have it.

This applies just as readily to the guy who is upset/sad/angry that he can't get a beautiful woman, not stopping to know or care if they should get together. She isn't real, she's just a plot device to move your story along.

Hold on: it is IMPOSSIBLE to understand you are doing this while you're in it, while there is a real life woman in front of you, "it can't be all about me, look, she smiles when I buy her roses!" Which is why doing this exercise is so important.

"But I'm not insecure!" you might say, "I just like hot chicks!" No doubt. Which is why Dobrenski's summation is perfectly accurate: "I don't believe I need her to feel good about myself. It was just easier to feel good about myself when I was with her." Nothing like an accessory to reinforce a brand.

VIII.

Note also that this is definitionally narcissism, but it's not at all
abnormal-- this is a totally ordinary, mid twenties kind of narcissism. It is not pathological. But that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt just the same.

IX.

Back to the upsetting fantasies of Janet with other men. We know he got over them by imagining more realistic scenarios. The question is, why did he imagine the unrealistic ones?

"Lots of times I paint a picture that she's a raging slut who's screwing a new guy every other night," [he says to Carol, his therapist.] "Other times it is her soul mate. Both drive me crazy."

At that point Carol decided to teach me an interesting trick.

"We've talked a lot about how our thoughts influence our mood. People make the assumption, however, that we always think in words. Here is a great example of how your cognitions are actually pictures. The images are your thoughts, which are driving this jealous reaction. The good news about this is that images are just like a film, except you are the director. With a little practice you can make the camera do whatever you want. Please, take me through one of these images."

And he describes the scenario of seductive Janet in her negligee and the built 6'2" guy about to plow her.

The trick is that Carol's trick isn't a trick, it is the entire purpose of the fantasies. Carol is going to help Rob make the camera do whatever he wants, as if the camera was right now doing something he didn't want, but in fact the camera is already doing exactly what he wants. The camera isn't making him miserable, it is keeping him from going insane.

If we're in a story, and Rob is, than these fantasies are exposition, they are telling the audience something. Look closely at these fantasies, at your own cuckold fantasies. Inevitably in these fantasies there is a fetish object, something that
existed in your relationship. It's seems incidental to the fantasy but
it is highly energized, eroticized: a piece of jewelry, clothing/bathing suit, or a location (car, bar, beach, etc). The sex is the visual focus, but the eroticized negligee that they bought when they were together is the true main character of the fantasy.

Men make the sex the focus, while women make the fetishized object more explicit: they obsess over the ex taking his new woman to the same places; or buying her "the same kind of scarf he got me"; or saying the same phrases ("that's what he used to call me.")

It seems masochistic, driving yourself crazy thinking about what you've lost, making the loss even worse by finding the specific ways that it hurts you.

But look back at what Janet was to Rob. What he really liked about Janet was what <<Janet>> meant about him. In Jerry McGuire, when Renee says to Tom, "you had me at hello," it's in response to the mushiest yet most accurate line in the movie: "you complete me." No kidding. So when Janet leaves, he doesn't lose her, he loses what the part of him she completed. That's what hurts him. The fantasies are a battlefield medic sewing up a wound of the self with dirty thread and a rusty needle. But at least you're alive.

Sure, on the one hand you've had a huge piece of your identity torn
out-- you wanted to be the kind of guy who dated the kind of girl that
Janet represented, and by leaving she's shamed you, exposed you as not that kind of guy, as a loser-- but on the other hand
you were that guy, and you can prove it: she's wearing
your negligee.

That loss of self is what you're trying to recapture with the masochistic fantasies: she's hot enough to have any guy she wants (and she picked you); she is in total control of her sex, wielding it for pleasure or for profit however she wants; so when she had sex with you, and liked it-- it signifies your own value. When some faceless stud undoes her bikini top in front of everyone, and she confidently flaunts her body-- that's your self-confidence she's flaunting.(3)

Since you see the fantasies but not the wounded self you think one's real and the other isn't. The hard part is to accept these fantasies as merely information, as part of the story, what do they tell the audience? The fantasies aren't the wound, the wound you have to close is the self: I'm not broken now that she's gone, I'm not a worse person, her leaving doesn't reveal me to be a loser. The next woman I meet will not know or care that I am the man Janet dumped. I'm depressed but still whole. I want her to have sex and be happy, or frankly it doesn't matter if she has sex, because it has nothing to do with me.

When that wound closes, you won't need the fantasies anymore. Or the negligee.

X.

Rob closes his book with parallel stories of endings: ending of his therapy, endings of clients' therapies, and endings of his involvement with clients' ongoing therapies. Actual therapists spend offensively little time understanding how and when to end a therapy (Rob and Carol do it right); and even ordinary humans seem to have great difficulty, anxiety, saying good-bye, hanging up the phone, not feeling compelled to tack on a "why don't you text me when you've settled in your new place?"

But knowing how to end things, whether it is therapy or a relationship or a book, is a fundamental skill that allows us to move on. Otherwise the past is dragged around like a deployed parachute, slowing your every move and suggesting to anyone who sees you that you must only just have landed.

Every story has an ending, and the more satisfying the ending the better the story.

------------

1. An example: Molly Ringwald played the unpopular kid in Sixteen Candles, pursuing the preppie jock; yet in The Breakfast Club she played the popular, "beautiful" type pursued by marginal character Judd Nelson. She looked exactly the same in both, but her "value" as sex object (not girlfriend) was higher in The Breakfast Club. She went back to being a desexualized person (not object) in Pretty In Pink. John Cryer, who was in love with Molly throughout the movie and eventually loses her to the preppie guy, is compensated for his loss by the sex object Kristy Swanson.

2. Movies like Heathers and ultimately Mean Girls permanently disposed of this narrative, and high school movies now generally favor parliamentary style politics: multiple parties forming coalitions. Teen movies now also downplay the ages, so while the plot of Weird Science couldn't be redone using 40 year olds, you could flip the ages in The Hangover or High School Musical and the stories and their themes stay mostly the same. They are both movies about childish adults, or adultish children, which are the same thing. Interestingly, Zac Efron's other movie 17 Again believably recreated 80s style power divisions and objectifications precisely because it was a movie about a middle aged man being 17 again, i.e. the movie was believably the worldview of such a middle aged man.

3. There is an element of aggression in these fantasies, and the extent to which this or the other explanation is operational depends on how "whole" you were to begin with. Unconsciously and deliberately putting your ex in these fantasies, forcing her to have sex with strangers, forcing her into sex she would not want herself; commandeering her image without her consent, destroys the integrity of the woman by reducing her only to an object-- all of these are regressive acts. This is a kind of revenge, compensation for the loss-- if I can't have your love, fuck you. (see footnote 1, above.)

Comments

This was detailed critique and analysis of the book, but not a review. Also, I just so happen to be reading Crazy and you don't really provide any unique insight. You've basically abbreviated the good doctor's work. This post could have been summarized, "Crazy: Notes On and Off the Couch, read it".

I have in my mind an ideal image of a woman who matches with my style, my standards, my desires. Therefore, when I meet someone who seems to embody these ideals, her face, her eyes, and her words, etc. look like my ideal image and I "fall in love", but in reality that person only functions as a lake in which I am seeing my own reflection.

Is it narcissism? If so, what's the sane way to be attracted to a woman? Is anyone really?

My definition of a review isn't simply a summery, nor is it an analysis or critique of the material. I believe a review of a book (or movie or play, etc.) is a recap of the author's success in coherently conveying their message. Did the book have a message worth telling? Did the book do a good job expressing this message? Was it well written? Was it captivating or entertaining?

All TLP did was abbreviate Crazy: Notes On and Off the Couch, using harsher language to repeat the things the author wrote about himself. TLP offers no opinion on the quality of the book, the writing or it's message. Overall I felt this was a lazy post on TLP's part.

"Dobrenski's summation is perfectly accurate: "I don't believe I need her to feel good about myself. It was just easier to feel good about myself when I was with her."
Then paragraph IX. goes on to expand on this thought, but Dobrenski's book has already done this. TLP isn't adding anything, uncovering anything, or contributing anything new that reading Crazy doesn't cover. Nor does TLP say if the book is good. TLP got a post out of reading Crazy and pretending to present new insight, when in reality everything he wrote is already covered in Crazy. What is TLP's opinion of the book? Other than his opening sentence that sending him a book to review is a bad idea, there's not really an indication. He picks apart Rob Dobrenski as a person or character, but makes no reference to the value of the message or the worthiness of reading the book.

To NapsterBater, I'd say buy the book. I've thoroughly enjoyed it so far. I think it's well written and has an engaging subject matter.

What the ....!? If you're not going to actually read the post you should think about keeping your own posts as short as the effort you invested. One of the best reviews I've ever read and one of the best recommendations *ever*. I'm going to think about my personal journey and depending on where I decide I am, I'll not buy it or I'll buy it today. What better review could you ask for?

*************
The typical way of working these problems is to realize that they aren't true, that they are self-defeating; that they originate in childhood, that they are the results of insufficient, or inconsistent, parental love. That's the typical way, and the wrong way.
*********
Why would this be the wrong way?? I am confused.

He doesn't directly state that it's a review, true, but it sounded like that's what he was trying to do.

"You can get the usual kinds of reviews anywhere. The whole point of TLP is that you can read something unusual, some insight that no one else will put in their reviews."
Even if it's not and never was meant to be a review, he didn't bring anything new to the table, like I said before. He should have just posted, "Read Crazy". All TLP did is sum up with Dobrenski wrote. I'm a big TLP fan, I just think it was a lazy post at best and at worst he ripped off Crazy.

and you aren't meeting people that "seem to embody those ideals" anyway. you're meeting people and then appending those ideals to them. I mean, if you're interested, they have to be there in the first place, right?

Last night I attended my high school reunion. A former classmate introduced me to her husband. He was older with an arrogant disposition. They told me they met at a charity event. I commented that their altruism brought them together. He scoffed at this and announced that it wasn't altrusim but that he noticed this "very attractive brunette."
Because I read this blog, I recognized this as narcissm. My classmate is a very attractive woman but it was important to him for everyone to know that he was the type of man to be with a "very attractive brunette." And he ignored the compliment I was trying to give him.

Man, who gives a fuck about that guys book, or a review of that book or whether this article fits the "definition" of a review, what does that have to do with anything? I enjoyed reading TLP's insights into a guy trying to get over a failed relationship. Which is more the type of thing I come here to read about than, say, a fucking book review, which I wasn't even under the impression this was supposed to be.

Ah. The older man with the pretty younger woman. Even when they're finally secure in the relationship itself (you really don't care about the age difference; you do find his body sexy, even though it's older) they still have that residual insecurity that everybody else is judging them--thinking a girl like her can't possibly really love a guy like him for anything but $$$.

At a reunion where everybody's his wife's age, that man was already on edge. When you commented it was altruism that brought them together, he very likely heard something like, "she must have taken you as a charity case, old man."

So to remind you why he wasn't a charity case (he brought $$$ to the table), he reminded you of his spouse's value (very attractive brunette) as an implied proxy for his own. After all, she wouldn't have married him if he weren't rich, right? Everybody knows that.

I was a bit worried for Dr. Rob when I saw this, but it was a fair and interesting take on his book.

Maybe you're out of the realm of adolescent narcissism when breaking up and seeing the person you love go, due to differences or timing or what have you, only makes you sad, and very tired... or maybe it's something even worse than narcissism. I'm not sure.

I just want to say that this is one of the more personally insightful posts I have read here in a while. This had a lot of problem identification as well as problem solution, which is something I often struggle with. If you're looking for recommended posts, I would definitely nominate this one.

Here is one guess, and a clue, about the author's problem: he dated a woman who, to some degree, had borderline personality disorder.

Some thoughts abt borderline pd are that ppl with this have 'black-and-white' thinking. It is tough if you are the therapist, cuz at first, the client really admires you as the greatest therapist evar - they are regarding you in the all-good lens; then, you do something to be less than perfect, and you have gone to all-bad.

In a romance, the borderline pd will regard the partner as the greatest partner evar. And, some say, the emotional development problem has to do with what most ppl pass thru at the 2-3yr age range - as power over others is learned, and emotional lability is great - so, at the beginning the relationship is supposed to be very emotionally wildly wonderful, with an uninhibited person - if the person with borderline is female, this is a cool thing for the guy - an uninhibited woman who thnigs you are the most awesome guy evar.

Then, you do something wrong. Then, you get the rageful hate. That is pretty much the time to move on. but it is hard to move on because you hate to see the good thang go. From the info on the guys' relationship, the relationship may fit the pattern.

Some ppl say that a dangerous pair is a borderline woman with a narcissist guy: he needs the audience to affirm his greatness, and she needs an identity to define her identity.

Just sayin' - the author may have some degree of the narcissism - but then again, anyone younger than 25 for sure is kind of in a developmental stage where they are a bit more self-focused than later in life.

Wtf is this and why is this man writing about my life. The hardest woman I've ever had to overcome was a redhead. Even know, over 10 years after she haunts me in my dreams. But I've come to accept it, I have a family now and a meaningful, working relationship.

I really don't know what happened there, never before and never since. Had a breakdown of sorts, and I guess I wasn't that far from killing myself. And no, I didn't bother her with any of the things I went through. I might have been crazy, but I try to recognize what's mine to carry and what's not. Things that I feel and the lies I want to tell myself are my problems.

Just to play the devil's advocate, perhaps he just has a self-deprecating sense of humor, and saying this was his way of being modest? Like, I don't know how altruistic I am, I just saw a pretty girl. It seems to me a narcissist would be more likely to accept your compliment, that he is indeed a truly selfless human being, rather than dryly brushing it off.

There are books saying there are 13 levels of truth--- there are seven levels of ambiguity (book) and there are seven doors to the Underworld (in Sumerian mythology) and seven is three plus four, which you'd have to know symbolism about three and four before you can appreciate that they equal seven. (Duh). Um, after I this much I have to start looking things up. Anybody?
Failing to answer why does truth have seven levels?---can still be not all that bad, if you have five other silly numerology things to look up (see above, e.g. why are there seven doors to the Underworld in Sumerian mythology)?
But I thank you- iit gives me something fun to do for a while, and it's been a long long day, not fun at all.

One thing to note--not all of us who stumbled across this post are people who are big fans of TLP. In fact, I'd never read anything at this blog before, clicked through from somewhere else; if TLP had merely written "Read Crazy," as you suggest, I wouldn't be here today at this post because nobody would have linked it, because that wouldn't have been remotely interesting.

I write book reviews at my blog (an award-winning book blog), and I can say without hesitation that just telling someone to read a book is failing the book. If you like or dislike a book enough to spend energy writing a post, it needs to be a convincing post. I've been convinced to look for this book after reading this post. I wouldn't have been if TLP followed your advice as to the content of the review.

reminds me of the time i met a girl one night with some friends and fell for her the only time i ever felt a special connection with a girl. she blew me off later on when i called her. i still thought about her many months after that. but instead of getting with her i was able to get a borderline personality disorder girl pregnant, thats almost as good right?

An article on Cracked.com got me interested in The Last Psychiatrist, and I've been archive-diving for months now. When I found this post I decided it needed a response because the final section brings up a point that resonated strongly with me.

I've been saying for years now that humans are creatures of narrative, that we need to organize our lives in terms of stories as much as we need to use our feet to walk. One of the things that has been bugging the fool out of me for more than a decade is the poor endings we give to our stories. Commercials are pretty good about this, because an advertisement has to be shaping to a specific ending and the ad-men never forget it. Movies are hit or miss - we all know of a generally good movie that was ruined by a sloppy or inconsistent ending.

Television series are the worst, though. Lost is the perfect example, but there are so many others that it's painful to think about. I'm not talking about series that end unexpectedly, like a series that gets cancelled, so the last episode in the can is the finale no matter how unsatisfying it is. I'm talking about the finales that suck so hard they actually suppress interest in watching the previous 'good' episodes.

This trend is troubling to me, but first I suppose I'd better verify that it is a trend. It may very well be that this has been the way of our culture for longer than I've been alive. Movies/series that leave a bad taste in viewers mouth may not be remembered for long. Regardless, it strikes me as a pernicious tendency in our entertainment to attend so poorly to the conclusions of our story. IMHO, the academy should have an award for Best Ending, and there should be an Emmy for Most Satisfying Culmination. Even the MTV awards should have a Coolest Final Episode category. Sure, it would be just as arbitrary as everything else, but I truly believe it would help our collective storytelling skills.

Am I alone in this reflection? For that matter, I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who disputes my premise - are humans not creatures of narrative?

If this was detailed critique and analysis of the book, then it couldn't have been accurately summarized, "Crazy: Notes On and Off the Couch, read it". That would make no sense. A lot of comments on this blog make no goddamn sense at all. Especially that one. Well played, Nik.

I read unrequited love tales like this, have experienced one or two of them myself, and fully get the narcissism involved in them, the way the hot girl is actually all about the guy himself.

But the most puzzling instance of unrequited love I've ever witnessed is much different: the girl, Amy, was everything but gorgeous, everything but intelligent, everything but kind, everything but sexy. This girl was the girl from Hell and fucking looked like it. And when she ran off for a wild weekend in Galveston with a milkman (the dude actually worked on a dairy farm milking cows), her boyfriend (who was, to all appearances, average in all ways), nearly went out of his mind with grief and it lasted for a long time.

So much so, that years later he showed up to give a multilevel marketing pitch to a mutual friend. At a given point in the spiel he had been instructed in his training to dramatically reveal the name of the "opportunity for a few key people" by writing the name of the MLM organization and then turning the paper for the mark to read. He wrote the name and turned the paper: "Amy".

I get the narcissism involved in mooning over a hot chick lost love. But what's going on when a guy or girl is mooning over a nasty troll the rest of us wouldn't touch with the proverbial ten foot pole?